Obama's People

I particularly liked Susan Rice's portrait and Kang's (holding book in front of himself). David Axelrod looks like he is auditioning for the role of Dupont or perhaps Dupond (Tintin references).
 
Strangely I rather like the unease and rumpled look of a lot of the subjects though I'm not sure that it was what was required here. Square them up, convert them to black and white and some of them bring Arbus to mind! :p
 
Would I be absolved if I say that these folks look as they were intended to look, out of this or that political calculation ?

We live the Joe the Plumber times.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
These people look the way they should look and these quirky portraits makes them look more approachable... Interestingly none of them have that look of a "potential war criminal"...
 
Yes these portraits were quirky but I thought most of the women looked quite attractive. On second thought, I think women generally photograph better than men.
 
I like the contrived look - the in between-ness of all the poses. But the question remains: that shadow. Clever lighting or Photoshop? I'd be curious to hear what the seasoned lighting types around here say.
 
Nh3 said:
These people look the way they should look and these quirky portraits makes them look more approachable... Interestingly none of them have that look of a "potential war criminal"...
Click to expand...

I am unfamiliar with the 'potential war criminal' look.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
o. m. g.


I concur. They're neither posed nor relaxed. They're coerced.
Click to expand...

Funny. When Jill Greenberg did what she did, everyone applauded her 'artistic vision' and defended her 'right to express her political opinions' via photography on the cover the Atlantic magazine. Some photographer has done the same to a rogue's gallery of incoming scamps, and now it's a bad thing because it isn't the outgoing scamps.

Laugh? I thought I'd die. The irony is lost on the sinister, but the dexter gets it.
 
Did anyone see the other set? The "backstory" pictures. I thought those were more interesting, though the cast of characters is limited- few of the subjects show up there.
 
bmattock said:
Funny. When Jill Greenberg did what she did, everyone applauded her 'artistic vision' and defended her 'right to express her political opinions' via photography on the cover the Atlantic magazine. Some photographer has done the same to a rogue's gallery of incoming scamps, and now it's a bad thing because it isn't the outgoing scamps.

Laugh? I thought I'd die. The irony is lost on the sinister, but the dexter gets it.
Click to expand...

I really like a good cheeseburger. I really don't like one when I've ordered pancakes.

If he wants to be all Warholish, he's perfectly free to do that. But as the official photographer for the White House, he ought to know the difference between reportage, "art", and plain incompetence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom